Re: [PATCH 6/9] drm/tegra: gem: Add a clarifying comment

Dmitry Osipenko
2021-03-24T16:50:48Z

24.03.2021 19:42, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 06:45:30PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 24.03.2021 18:02, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:41:08PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 23.03.2021 18:54, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Clarify when a fixed IOV address can be used and when a buffer has to
>>>>> be mapped before the IOVA can be used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/plane.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/plane.c
>>>>> index 19e8847a164b..793da5d675d2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/plane.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/plane.c
>>>>> @@ -119,6 +119,14 @@ static int tegra_dc_pin(struct tegra_dc *dc, struct tegra_plane_state *state)
>>>>> dma_addr_t phys_addr, *phys;
>>>>> struct sg_table *sgt;
>>>>>
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * If we're not attached to a domain, we already stored the
>>>>> + * physical address when the buffer was allocated. If we're
>>>>> + * part of a group that's shared between all display
>>>>> + * controllers, we've also already mapped the framebuffer
>>>>> + * through the SMMU. In both cases we can short-circuit the
>>>>> + * code below and retrieve the stored IOV address.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> if (!domain || dc->client.group)
>>>>> phys = &phys_addr;
>>>>> else
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This comment is correct, but the logic feels a bit lame because it
>>>> should be wasteful to re-map DMA on each FB flip. Personally I don't
>>>> care much about this since older Tegras use pinned buffers by default,
>>>> but this shouldn't be good for T124+ users.
>>>
>>> I'm not terribly thrilled by this either, but it's the only way to do
>>> this when using the DMA API because we don't know at allocation time (or
>>> import time for that matter) which of the (up to) 4 display controllers
>>> a framebuffer will be shown on. tegra_dc_pin() is the earliest where
>>> this is known and worst case that's called once per flip.
>>>
>>> When the IOMMU API is used explicitly, we always map framebuffers into
>>> the IOMMU domain shared by all display controllers at allocation or
>>> import time and then we don't need to pin at flip time anymore.
>>>
>>> I do have a work-in-progress patch somewhere that creates a mapping
>>> cache to mitigate this problem to some degree. I need to dig that up and
>>> do a few measurements because I vaguely recall this speeding up flips by
>>> quite a bit (well, except for the very first mapping, obviously).
>>>
>>>> Perhaps dumb buffers should be pinned to display by default and then we
>>>> should extend the Tegra UAPI to support BO mapping to display client(?).
>>>
>>> That would kind of defeat the purpose of a generic KMS UAPI.
>>
>> Couldn't the BOs be mapped when FB is created, i.e. by tegra_fb_create?
>
> I suppose that would be possible. However, tegra_fb_create() doesn't
> know a thing about display controllers, so we'd have to add extra code
> to it to iterate over all display controllers and do a dma_map_sg() of
> the GEM object for each of them.
>
> It's also somewhat wasteful because now we get a mapping for each
> framebuffer for each display controller. So if you've got, say, a four
> UHD screen setup (which is something that Tegra194 supports), you could
> end up with 8 UHD framebuffers (two for each display, for double-
> buffering) at 32 MiB each for a whopping 256 MiB of memory that needs to
> be mapped for each of the four display controllers. That 1 GiB worth of
> page table updates, whereas you really only need one fourth of that.
>
> Granted, this will make flipping a bit faster, and IOVA space isn't
> really a problem on Tegra194. It would still waste a bit of RAM for all
> those page table entries that we don't really need, though.
>
> A mapping cache seems like a much better compromise because the cache
> lookup should be quite fast compared to a mapping operation and we waste
> just a couple dozen bytes per mapping perhaps as opposed to a few
> megabytes for the gratuitous, preemptive mappings.

Isn't it really possible to put displays into the same IOMMU group on
T194? It doesn't make much sense to have them in a separate groups on Linux.